Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    09 Nov '10 23:15
    British politicians say nay, how say you?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Nov '10 00:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    British politicians say nay, how say you?
    If it could be showed that it did save lives, would that justify it?

    If yes, it's probably justified on the substantial probability that it would save lives. It stands to reason that a policy of torturing suspects will save a life eventually.

    If not, then who cares whether it saved lives?
  3. 10 Nov '10 01:16
    Waterboarding undoubtedly saved the lives of the people who were waterboarded unless it killed them.
  4. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    10 Nov '10 04:01
    I used to boogie board, but I don't know that anyone but me ever got anything substantially worthwhile out of it.
  5. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    10 Nov '10 06:41
    Thankyou all for your kind participation.
  6. 10 Nov '10 10:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    British politicians say nay, how say you?
    Since the details are probably classified, we will probably never know.
    The real questions are:
    Would that make it justified? (as already asked by sh76).
    Are there better methods? (I think interrogation experts have argued that there are).
    Did it loose lives? Apparently torture is an excellent way to get the suspect to say whatever the interrogator wants, which could easily have lead to bad decisions and loss of life.

    I also feel compelled to ask:
    If water-boarding is OK for suspected terrorists, why don't we use it for suspected murderers or rapists? Surely we would save lives there too?
  7. 10 Nov '10 10:42
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Since the details are probably classified, we will probably never know.
    The real questions are:
    Would that make it justified? (as already asked by sh76).
    Are there better methods? (I think interrogation experts have argued that there are).
    Did it loose lives? Apparently torture is an excellent way to get the suspect to say whatever the interrogator wa ...[text shortened]... , why don't we use it for suspected murderers or rapists? Surely we would save lives there too?
    Why stop there? I say we start waterboarding suspected speeders.
  8. 10 Nov '10 12:23
    Originally posted by sh76
    If it could be showed that it did save lives, would that justify it?

    If yes, it's probably justified on the substantial probability that it would save lives. It stands to reason that a policy of torturing suspects will save a life eventually.

    If not, then who cares whether it saved lives?
    GW says it was done to 3 individuals and it saved thousands of lives. He also said his lawyers told him it was legal and he would do it again.
    Personally, I would of gave them shock treatments or skinned them alive.
  9. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    10 Nov '10 14:20
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Thankyou all for your kind participation.
    Is there a reasonable expectation that something as official sounding as "British politicians" ought to impart objectivity and sage historical perspective?
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Nov '10 14:49
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    GW says it was done to 3 individuals and it saved thousands of lives. He also said his lawyers told him it was legal and he would do it again.
    Personally, I would of gave them shock treatments or skinned them alive.
    I'm normally the first to bite the heads of people who make slippery slope arguments.

    But, damn, torturing suspects to extract information is a slippery slope...
  11. 10 Nov '10 14:56
    Originally posted by sh76
    I'm normally the first to bite the heads of people who make slippery slope arguments.

    But, damn, torturing suspects to extract information is a slippery slope...
    Thinking twice about the righteousness of torture is a slippery slope.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Nov '10 14:58
    Originally posted by John W Booth
    Thinking twice about the righteousness of torture is a slippery slope.
    Thinking twice about anything is a slippery slope.

    Is it not painful enough to think once?
  13. 10 Nov '10 15:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    Thinking twice about anything is a slippery slope.

    Is it not painful enough to think once?
    I will not concede that I did. Eggs and omlettes, dude. Some stuff is just a no-brainer.
  14. 10 Nov '10 23:09
    Originally posted by kmax87
    British politicians say nay, how say you?
    I once asked my father why the US Army didn't torture since it could possibly be an effective practice. He answered, "We don't do because it is wrong!"

    It amazes me that some citizens are such neglected scum that they were not taught right and wrong by their parents.

    Failing to prosecute admitted war criminals is also a clear mistake. We have forgotten Auschwitz.
  15. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    10 Nov '10 23:34
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Is there a reasonable expectation that something as official sounding as "British politicians" ought to impart objectivity and sage historical perspective?
    Not particularly. Dubbya's claim to the British media was that waterboaarding had undoubtably saved British lives, a claim that Brit pollies were more than a bit skeptical of.

    And for my own opinion, I'm don't believe that the intel that torture brings is all that useful. That a big fish may be landed in the nets parallel to certain nasties being tortured would be more a fact of good luck and timing of other intel operations.

    Torture strikes me as being a sanctioned vengence where you can exact punishment to near death over and over again. I'm not convinced that any civil society should be complicit to these forms of interrogration.